Dawn Butler to join protest tonight as Scrutiny examine NW London NHS cuts & their impact on patients

The NW London NHS Financial Recovery Plan will come under close scrutiny at the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday. The plan aims to tackle the deficit in a variety of ways but the fear is that it will impact on patients.

The full document with the financial background and overall strategy can be found HERE but of most importance for residents will be the actions that are planned that will affect patients. Committee members will need to look beyond the jargon and probe deeply to find out what the real implications are for patients.

Dawn Butler will lead a protest outside the Civic Centre against the cuts, the ending of an overnight service at Central Middlesex Urgent Care Centre, and the closure of Cricklewood Walk-In Centre. She will be speaking at Scrutiny. Butler has also issued a video challenge to Brent CCG to join her on the overnight bus from Central Middlesex Hospital to Ealing Hospital to show how difficult the journey is for residents seeking urgent treatment.

Cllr Mary Daly has provided a commentary on theRecovery Plan proposals via Twitter:

Cllr Mary Daly

@CllrDaly

The managers bemoan the increased use of emergency service doesn’t seem able to link it to cuts to out of hours primary care across the area or CMH urgent care centre. There is no plan for primary or community care.

There appears to be no equalities impact assessment. No meaningful consultation with residents and certainly no contact with local councillors. yet we are told £98.9m.....

£8m saved by denying brent residents over the counter medicines. This affects the most vulnerable refugees, low income residents. this is not to improve the service but to save money...,

£6m saving by stopping new and follow up outpatient appointments denying specialist to thousands......

Admit fewer emergency patients including those with pulmonary embolus and pneumonia no reference to community services social care ......

£4.6m saved by refusing referral for elective surgery if the money runs out unless you are waiting more than a year YES a year

This is the pertinent section of the report:

6. How These Changes Will Affect Brent Patients 

6.1.The section below provides further detail on how specific recovery schemes are likely to affect Brent patients, as requested by the Community Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee. 

6.2.Elective hospital services and bringing some elective hospital services back to local North West London providers 

This programme will focus on “repatriating” elective procedures begin referred by General Practitioners and Trusts to providers outside North West London back into the North West London sector. The project aims to change referral patterns where NWL GPs consider using NW London providers and only refer outside of the sector if there is no capacity or if the patient requires intervention provided by specialist centres out of area. 

North West London NHS has an agreement with local NHS Trusts that specific quantities of activity will be delivered in each trust. Any activity above a set threshold is paid at 70% of the Payment by Results Tariff. This means that if more activity is referred to North West London providers, then approximately 30% of the tariff will be saved on each procedure. This is not true of providers external to North West London or to private sector providers.
The total amount of activity that we could bring back into the sector amounts to around 15% of all secondary care activity. 

For Brent patients, they should see no change in the healthcare that they receive, except that they are more likely to be referred to a local provider rather than a provider external to the North West London health economy such as Royal Free Hospitals NHS Trust, for example. This is likely to be a benefit to patients in not having to travel longer distances across the city. 

It should be noted that patients and GPs will always retain the right under the NHS Constitution to be referred to a provider of their choice and that GP retain the right to make decisions for the wellbeing of their patients. 

6.3. Outpatient services and changes to outpatient appointments 

NWL CCGs have reached agreement with providers that all activity in Quarters 3 and 4 of 2019/20 will be at contracted (planned) levels of activity, unless this puts waiting list commitments at risk. It was agreed that there will be no rise in 52 week waiters.
Additionally, our providers have agreed to adhere an existing consultant to consultant referral policy. The key principle behind this is that referrals relating to the original complaint can be referred on directly to another consultant. However, if an entirely different complaint comes to the attention of the consultant (unrelated to the original referral) this should be referred back to the patient’s GP first. 

We have an outpatient transformation programme in North West London which has developed standardised referral guidelines. Consultants are currently triaging GP referrals against these guidelines when the referrals arrive at the hospital. Any referrals which do not adhere to the guidelines will be sent back to the referring GP with advice. In this way, unnecessary outpatient appointments can be avoided and patients may receive their care from their local GP practice. 

6.4. Reducing spending on over the counter medicine prescriptions

Using the NHS London published guidance, we are working with secondary and primary care to reduce the volume of over the counter medication (for example paracetamol or ibuprofen) prescribed to patients. We have in place a communication plan for clinicians, patients and the wider public to support roll out. We will work with secondary care colleagues to support the programme and ensure that advice to patients is consistent across primary and secondary care.
Patients who are considered to be particularly vulnerable and are in receipt of free prescriptions may still receive these over the counter medications on prescription, at the discretion of their GP. 

6.5. Standardising assessments for patient transport 

This programme involves the renegotiation of the price on the LNWHT patient transport contract and a consistent application of current eligibility criteria. Discussions are currently underway with LNWHT with regard to the first element of the programme. Patient care will not be affected and those patients who require patient transport will still be able to receive it. 

6.6.Home Oxygen and Enteral Feeds 

This programme is made up of 3 elements. The first is the benefit of a pricing change following national procurement for home oxygen. The next is a clinical review of patients on home oxygen, prioritising those patients who have not been reviewed in the last 12 months and/or those patients where the data shows they are using less oxygen than prescribed. This review process will ensure that patients are not receiving a higher dosage of oxygen than they need, and that oxygen is not being wasted where it is no longer required. It will not change the criteria for patients to receive oxygen. 

The enteral feeds procurement provides commissioners with a saving by reducing the costs of consumables and securing a better deal with the NHS’s external providers. It does not alter the care pathway and patients will not experience any change. 

6.7.Unscheduled Care 

A&E attendances and unplanned emergency admissions to hospital continue to rise in an unsustainable way. These are one of the biggest drivers of the deficit to the NWL financial system. There are a number of workstreams to address this. These schemes are divided up into “front door demand”, which is about reducing the number of patients turning up at the front door of A&E/ Urgent Care Centres, and “short stay flow”, which is about getting senior level clinician input at the start of patients’ journeys into the A&E department so that they can be turned around more quickly. This in turn means that they are less likely to be admitted to an inpatient bed. 

Clinicians from LNWHUT and Brent and Harrow CCGs are currently participating in a “6As audit”. Emergency admission to hospital is a major event in people’s lives. It should never happen because it is easy to admit or to access services that could be available as an out-patient or to administer treatment that may be available closer to home or to get a specialist opinion. All of these are spurious reasons for an emergency admission. To transform emergency healthcare we need to understand why we put patients through this process when alternatives exist and operate effectively across the country but haven’t been widely implemented.
Emergency admission implies a patient is sick and requires a high level of intervention. As such, all proposed emergency admissions should prompt a clinical conversation between senior doctors, ideally consultants. 

The 6 As audit is about establishing whether patients are currently going to the optimal place, or whether improvements could be made to better utilise community care pathways. The audit involves asking whether the following alternatives could have been used: 

·  Advice - suggest a clinical management plan that allows the patient to be managed in primary care

·  Access to out-patient services - suggest an outpatient referral for specialist assessment

·  Ambulatory Emergency Care - clinically stable patients appropriate for same day discharge

·  Acute Frailty Unit - to provide comprehensive geriatric assessment for frail older patients

·  Acute Assessment Units - to diagnose and stabilise patients likely to need admission

·  Admission to specialty ward directly - for agreed clinical pathways and specialised clinical presentations

Once the conclusions of the audit are received, we will aim to optimise our referral pathways so that patients are seen in the most appropriate service and location. 

6.8. High Intensity Users 

This programme is about pro-active case finding of high intensity users (5 or more A&E attendances or admissions within the last 12 months) and to ensure that members of the frequent attenders forum are fully informed. The forum aims to identify other services and resources that may help the patient address their needs e.g. housing, drug and alcohol treatment programmes,psychological interventions etc. As part of this process, the patient’s GP is consistently informed of their registered patient’s interactions with the ambulance/ hospital/ urgent care services. A care plan is formulated and stored on the Co-ordinate My Care system, which means that it is then accessible to hospital clinicians who need to access it as part of any future re- attendance. The aim of the programme is to reduce future unnecessary re- attendances. It will improve patient care in Brent as patients will receive pro- active care that is better tailored to their needs, rather than turning up in an A&E department, which may not be best suited to the type of expertise that the patient needs. 

6.9.LAS Demand
 
This scheme is about supporting the London Ambulance Service (LAS) to book into extended access hub appointments based in GP practices, where this would be the most appropriate course of action for the patient’s needs.
Where appropriate, the 999 service will also be able to book into the access hub appointments.
To support the LNWUHT system Brent, Harrow, and Ealing CCGs have been selected for rollout in phase 1 of GP in-hours and Extended Access booking from LAS Clinical Hub (known as CHUB). Clinical engagement is underway for opening these slots to the CHUB. 

6.10. LAS Walk-In Demand 

The Brent category of the LAS has some of the highest rates of conveyance to A&E of all categories. This may be due to higher than average vacancy rates in the service, and a less experienced cohort of incoming paramedics that may be more risk averse in their assessment of patients. This should improve over time as staff become more experienced, but a programme of shadowing is taking place so that LAS staff understand what is available in the community and can refer patients to community pathways where a conveyance to A&E is not deemed to be required. 

6.11. Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) 

SDEC is the provision of same day care for emergency patients who would otherwise be admitted to hospital.Under this care model, patients presenting at hospital with relevant conditions can be rapidly assessed, diagnosed and treated without being admitted to a ward, and if clinically safe to do so, will go home the same day their care is provided. 

When a patient comes to hospital, an SDEC service (which may operate under the name of ambulatory emergency care unit) means patients with some medical concerns can be assessed, diagnosed, treated and safely discharged home the same day, rather than being admitted. 

SDEC services treat a wide range of common conditions including headaches, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, pneumonia, cellulitis, and diabetes. The types of conditions that can be managed through SDEC will vary depending on the hospital and needs of the local population. 

We aim to expand the usage of SDEC as part of our financial recovery programme, which will reduce overnight non-elective admissions (1-2 days length of stay) and A&E attendances by increasing activity through the SDEC pathways and optimising the ambulatory emergency care units. Shorter lengths of stay attract a lower tariff for the CCGs and therefore reduce costs. 

6.12. Front Door Frailty 

The aim of this programme is to implement proactive frailty services which will avoid admissions by providing a holistic response for frail older people in the community and during time of crisis. Frailty practitioners will screen patients who are 75 or over and for those who have a high score, a consultant geriatrician at the front end of A&E will provide a comprehensive geriatric assessment. This means that we are usually able to turn the patient around more quickly so that they get the care they need and may never need an admission to an inpatient bed. This is safer for the patient, as they are likely to stay more mobile at home and not pick up hospital acquired infections. 

6.13. Admission conversion rates 

This programme is about the rates of which A&E attendances ‘convert’ into unplanned admissions to hospital beds. We are using benchmarking data to compare our local hospitals to national averages and London averages so that hospitals who are above the average try to bring their conversion rates down to the average. This means that more patients will benefit from being able to stay out of hospital and reduce their risk of hospital acquired infections. It is a financial benefit to the system because it means that we are not funding unnecessary numbers of hospital beds or opening new beds. It also allows those patients who are most seriously ill to access a bed when they need it. 

6.14. Demand Management 

We have a comprehensive review programme of primary care variation. Across Brent, the amount of secondary care activity and prescribing spend that are attributed to individual GP practices varies significantly, and this does not always correlate with deprivation levels of the demographics of the GP practice. We intend to reduce this unwarranted variation in practice and to enable GP practices to learn from each other to ensure that best practice care pathways are being followed. 

The programme includes:

·       Reviewing A&E and UCC attendances, and contacting patients within 2 days of discharge where attendance was inappropriate;

·       Practices promoting self-care management and continue to improve patient access. 40 practices currently offering E-consultations with a further going live imminently;

·       Ensuring visible display of GP Access Hub, NHS 111 and Online Services Posters;

·       Conducting internal and external peer reviews with CCG and PCN/network leads;

·       Locum, GP trainees and associates referrals to be triaged by the lead clinician/GP partner

·       Educational sessions for all GPs and clinical staff. Inter-practice referrals optimising skill mix at PCN level

·       Kilburn Locality has a low outpatient referral activity - learning shared with other PCNs (advice and guidance at Imperial and MDT programme)

The meeting begins at 6pm on Thursday 24th October at Brent Civic Centre. The meeting will be in the Conference Hall and is open to the press and public.

Should Wembley residents be picking up the bill for Quintain’s mistakes?

Guest blog by ' A Wembley Park Resident'.

The first residential block in Quintain’s rapidly expanding Wembley Park empire, Forum House was a flagship development at the time it opened back in 2009.   Along with neighbouring Quadrant Court which opened a year later, these developments were intended to establish Wembley Park’s reputation for “destination living” at an affordable price.   These early developments were mixed tenure - with private leaseholders and renters, shared owners and social renters all moving in to the new blocks. But as Quintain rolling out new developments at a rate of knots, some of which feature no properties at social rent, they appear to have taken their eye off the ball when it comes to ensuring that their original residents remain satisfied.  Most of their efforts are going into marketing newer luxury properties, and promoting their much-vaunted Tipi scheme, based on a build-to-rent model.

Quintain implicitly acknowledged that the managing agents they had originally contracted to oversee the developments were under-performing when they took the contract away from LRM and awarded it to rivals First Port.  But the full scale of LRM’s failure only became clear subsequently, after they left a vast deficit (thought to be just short of £100,000) in the Forum House annual accounts for 2016-17. Despite already high-levels of service charge, LRM had apparently failed to make any provision for a sinking fund - necessary for prudent management of any estate - and had consistently overspent despite failing to address recurring problems in servicing the estate, including the regularly faulty boilers and pumps.

So who is to pay for the shortfall?   LRM has now pocketed its fees and the accounts have been signed off.   Quintain might yet to be entitled to query whether LRM delivered on its contractual obligations, and potentially recover some of their cash.   But in the meantime, it’s been left to residents to cough-up for a significant “balancing charge” running into hundreds of pounds each, whilst at the same time being hit with major service charge increases from First Port (using LRM’s questionable figures as a baseline guide).   

In his usual suave manner, Quintain boss James Saunders promised WPRA’s febrile Wider Residents Meeting in June that the company would undertake a review of what monies could be reclaimed from LRM, which he anticipated might take three months.   But when the residents have asked for a progress update, no further reassurances have been given. Residents fear they’ll still be on the hook for the costs of having been failed by the freeholder and managing agents. Isn’t it time, they are asking, that Quintain paid the price for its own mistakes?

Bennett: What got us into 'this mess' is the fraud, errors and mismanagement of the corrupt and still out-of-control financial sector

Summary of Green Party reactions to the Autumn Statement

·         Caroline Lucas MP on Tax avoidance announcement: ‘This is a small step in right direction - but we urgently need full tax transparency’ 
·         Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett: Problems with Autumn Statement start at foundations - deficit cannot be blamed on government spending and welfare 
·         Lucas on cold homes: No excuse left for the Government’s killer complacency on the cold homes 
·         Lucas on Fracking sovereign wealth fund: ‘It’s a cynical gimmick. The best thing for the economy and the environment is super energy efficiency, properly insulated homes and investment  in renewables,’
·         Lucas on Austerity: ‘The people did not cause the financial crash and they should not be punished for it. It’s time to expose the lie is that there is no alternative to austerity’ 

THE Government has shown what is akin to ‘killer complacency’ on cold homes in its Autumn Statement, Caroline Lucas MP has said.

While she welcomed some announcements, she said the Government’s energy policies had been ‘defined by chaos and contradictions’.

There was no excuse left for the Government’s killer complacency on the cold homes she said.

Lucas, Co-Chair of the All-Party Fuel Poverty and Energy Efficiency Group, slammed news that none of the Treasury’s planned £100 billion investment in infrastructure over the next Parliament would be allocated to measures to tackle fuel poverty, noting that allocating just two per cent of the Government’s current annual £45 billion infrastructure budget to housing retrofit would allow half a million low income homes to be made highly energy efficient every year.

The Government had displayed ‘wilful ignorance of the overwhelming fiscal, human and environmental benefits of energy efficiency* and the consequences for families and the NHS are plain to see’, she said.

She added:

“People are freezing in their homes, and it’s preventable. Cold homes cost lives and cost our NHS – to the tune of well over £1bn a year. The UK’s woefully draughty and energy-inefficient housing stock is an urgentinfrastructure priority. It makes no economic sense to ignore, but it’s exactly what the Government is doing. The Government has grossly failed the public today.

“A nationwide super energy-efficiency drive would lower household energy bills,hugely contribute to job creation and the economy, as well as being essential for carbon targets. It’s a win-win – the Government’s continued inaction flies in the face of all common sense.”

Meanwhile, responding to the Statement, Leader of The Green Party of England and Wales, Natalie Bennett, said:

 "The many problems with this Autumn Statement start with its foundations. Osborne is continuing the demonstrably false claim that our deficit problems can be blamed on government spending and welfare.

"But what got us into 'this mess' is the fraud, errors and mismanagement of the corrupt and still out-of-control financial sector.

"But to admit that would require George Osborne to explain why after more than four years in government he has not delivered the urgent action needed is to tackle the still out-of-control sector, the still too-big-to-fail banks and its hulking dominance of our imbalanced economy that sucks capital and skilled people into the City and away from places where they could be helping to improve the wellbeing of all."

On the Government’s flood defence announcement, Lucas said:

“Families have been devastated by flooding and investment in proper flood protection is critical. But the Government is offering a disingenuous, feel-good fix – dig just a little, and it’s perfectly clear that this spending falls far short of what’s actually necessary to protect homes and businesses from increased flood risk due to climate change. We also need prevention – we need concrete action and investment to tackle the roots of the issue, including climate change. This is just another example of the Government’s persistent failure to climate-proof the flooding budget.” 

Tax avoidance
Lucas said: 

 “The extent of tax avoidance, tax evasion and unpaid tax in the UK economy is staggering. The Government’s apathetic policies on corporate tax avoidance have smacked of elitist double standards. Corporate tax dodgers are allowed to get away with not paying their fair share in society, while workers and small businesses are left paying the price. Today’s announcement is a small step in right direction, but if we’re serious about stamping out tax avoidance, then we urgently need full tax transparency.”

Small business

The Leader of The Green Party of England and Wales, Natalie Bennett, said:

 "Measures to help small business are in principle welcome. Another way in which we desperately need to rebalance our economy is away from the tax-dodging, low-paying multinationals back towards strong local economies built around small businesses and cooperatives.

"But the plaster of business rate relief won't heal the gaping wound caused by parasitical multinationals. We need to make the multinationals not only pay their taxes - and it is good to see rhetoric on this, although past experience says the detail of action will need careful examination - but also pay their staff decently and give them stable, secure jobs. And we need to stop big business stamping all over small business suppliers with unacceptable payment terms, and ensure their operations obey the law." 

Lucas welcomed the Chancellor’s acknowledgement that the business rates system wasn’t working but said that whilst a review is welcome news, we also need swift, positive action now.
She said:

 “We need policies with teeth - bold plans that deliver real change for small businesses on the ground.  The vast majority of businesses in my constituency are small or micro-level, and they’re are the backbone of our local economy. As well as forming part of community life, they provide valuable services and jobs. The business owners I meet in Brighton Pavilion tell me they’re struggling with business rates. This Government says it’s pro small business, so that needs to be reflected in its policies.

“We need the local business rates relief to be expanded to benefit more small businesses, who are being crippled by high rents and high rates. The Government has dragged its feet on this for years– and a review is welcome. But Brighton’s businesses need action, now.” 

Fracking

Lucas said: 

‘The Fracking sovereign wealth fund is a cynical gimmick. The best thing for the economy and the environment is super energy efficiency, properly insulated homes and investment in renewables.’

London needs a million new homes by 2021 research claims

This statement from London Councils shows the depth of London's housing crisis:

London's future prosperity is in doubt unless steps - such as lifting restrictions on councils borrowing against their assets - are taken to build nearly a million homes by 2021, a new analysis shows.

London Councils, which represents London’s 33 local authorities, has carried out a new analysis of Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and Greater London Authority (GLA) official housing statistics. The research reveals that:

• between 2011 and 2021, 526,000 new homes will need to be built in London just to keep up with new housing demand (London’s population is expected to increase by over one million in the next decade)
• only 250,000 homes will be built on current projections
• a further 283,000 homes will also need to be built to along with the 526,000 on current supply levels to meet both new demand and the backlog of housing need in London
• in total, 809,000 homes are needed by 2021 to meet new housing need as well as the backlog of housing need.

Current housing supply levels suggest that there will be a deficit of 559,000 homes by 2021 – which even when excluding factors such as overcrowding still amounts to 329,000 fewer homes than London will require. This will put London’s future status as a global city at risk while adding huge pressures to government and individuals’ budgets.

Mayor Sir Steve Bullock, London Councils’ Executive Member for Housing, said: “The news that London needs almost a million homes by 2021 is a scandal - the last time we faced such an acute housing supply crisis was after the Second World War. This is a long time coming and the capital’s future prosperity is on the line.”

“Rising housing costs are not only a problem for those struggling to rent but for any Londoner wishing to buy their own home.  If the housing crisis is not solved, costs for the London economy will continue to spiral. More working families will struggle to rent and to buy, more people could be forced out of the capital and homelessness is very likely to go up.”

London Councils’ discussion paper, which was released ahead of the party conference season, sets out a range of policy solutions to boost housing supply. This includes lifting the “Housing Borrowing Cap” which prevents councils investing in housing – a move supported by the wider housing and property sector .
Other policies include increasing investment in the rental sector, supporting smaller scale builders, and promoting sustainable development near London’s tube and rail network. 

The report estimates 134,000 homes could be built if all these measures and others were taken forward.

Mayor Sir Steve Bullock added: “With London’s population expected to top nine million by 2021, we need to use the party conference season to explore the radical strategic steps needed to build almost a million homes - such as lifting unnecessary restrictions on councils borrowing to invest in new homes and helping small businesses win construction contracts.”

Muhammed Butt promises to consult on Brent budget

Following my posting on the lack of consultation on the Brent Budget LINK, Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has sent me this comment:

I can assure you that we will be consulting on the budget. I am formalising dates and times with the consultation team and will get back to you and we will let everyone know as soon as things have been set.

We have not been able to put the budget on the agenda due to the government giving us our funding settlement figures so late and they are still giving us the data in chunks which is making setting the budget process very difficult.

Everyone has the opportunity to use the soap box to highlight any issues and concerns to us at every forum and would encourage you to use that and you can always suggest topics of conversation for the forums.

We are always looking to find different formats and topics that will allow us to engage better with our residents.

What's happening with Brent's 2013-14 budget?

Brent Expenditure and Income 2012-13

The Council Budget for 2013-14 should be on the agenda for the Full Council Meeting on November 19th according to the Council's budgetary process:

There is a Full Council meeting (usually in November) where the budget is raised as an issue. All Councillors of all political groups are invited to submit ideas, plans and suggestions for inclusion in the next year's budget. These suggestions are then taken away and discussed by the Executive (usually in December).

The Executive will then issue their proposals for the budget.

At the same time Scrutiny's Budget Panel is sitting and they also come up with their proposals by February. The report is considered by the Executive and, if required, changes are made to the proposals.

Finally, the proposals go to another Full Council meeting where they are voted on, and, whatever is agreed, is implemented as the council's budget for the next year.

However, there are reports that the Council is behind with the process this year perhaps as a result of changes in the officer and councillors involved in Finance.  By the second week in November last year Cllr Ann John had issued a 'Bad News' budget report LINK.

Is is likely that we will receive an 'Even More Bad News' report from Muhammed Butt soon. There has been no word from Cllr Ruth Moher, now Lead Member for Finance and Resources who took over the post from Butt following the 'coup'.

Meanwhile the Budget Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Thursday 15th November may give us some clues. What is beyond doubt is that with government grants reduced and pressures on council spending from homelessness and social care of the elderly the situation will be dire. Apart from the potential revenue from a rise in Council Tax (a tiny proportion of the overall budget which is mainly made up of government grants) there are few options open to the Council apart from making more cuts which will impact on the vulnerable, or taking a stand against the Coalition and devising a campaigning needs led budget and a consequent deficit budget.  

This would involve a real dialogue with trades unions, voluntary organisations, community groups, campaigning groups and residents. Time is limited and such  process should begin as soon as possible.

Background is provided by the mid-year Brent Treasury Report by Mick Bowden, Deputy Director of Finance. The Director of Finance, Clive Heaphy remains suspended and there is no word on the financial settlement for Gareth Daniel, the former Chief Executive.

The Report outlines theCapital Finance Requirement (CFR) requirements for the years ahead with a significant  increase next year:
 

	31/03/12 Actual	31/03/2013 Estimate	31/03/2014 Estimate	31/03/2015 Estimate
CFR	£537m	£598m	£594m	£591m

 At the same time there is a significant  forecast reduction in 'usable' reserves:

	31/03/2012 Actual	31/03/2013 Estimate	31/03/2014 Estimate	31/03/2015 Estimate
Usable Reserves	£58m	£37m	£30m	£24m

There has been a shift from short-term to long-term borrowing which remains under the limits set out by the Department for Communities and Local Government. An additional £20m has been borrowed since April 2012 and a rise in the rate of interest:

Borrowing	Balance on 01/04/2012	Debt Repaid	New Borrowing	Balance on 30/09/2012
Short-term	£26.3m	£44.3m	£18m	0
Long-Term	£405.5m	£1.2m	£20m	£424.3
Total	£431.8m	£45.5m	£38m	£424.3
Average Rate %	4.45%			4.71%

The Report states that the Council expects to recover £4m of the £5m inested in Icelandic domiciled banks and £9m of the £10m invested in non-Iceland domiciled banks. The Council's investment income this year is estimated at only £0.1m .

The full Mid Year Report is available HERE



 

Why Greens will be marching for 'A Future that Works' on October 20th

This article by Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party of England and Wales


The march for "a future that works" organised by the trade union movement on October 20th is vital to the movement against austerity.

We need to be looking to a new economic model rather than these tired, heartless false economies that hit the most vulnerable the hardest.

We should be investing in the future, creating jobs and stabilising the economy. Instead we see more of the same privatisation, casualisation and demonisation of the poor, disabled and public sector workers.

Deficit in thinking

Even in the government's own terms massive cuts to public services made no sense - and the fact that government borrowing is at a record high only underlines how economically illiterate this "deficit reduction" project has been.

Instead of hitting the target of a 4.6% reduction in the deficit in fact the deficit has grown by 22% between April and August.

You cannot put an economy back on its feet by throwing people out of work and undermining the public services that keep society ticking.

If the Coalition government was serious about tackling the gap between government spending and income it would be ruthlessly tackling tax avoidance on the part of the rich and large corporations. It would cut spending on nuclear weapons and unnescesary road building - but these cuts are ideologically motivated and are really about the privatisation and carving up of public services, we cannot allow that to happen.

Marching makes a difference
I firmly believe we need to help build a movement for a more sustainable economic system. A movement that reins in the banking and financial sector while investing in the real economy, giving us a solid foundation with which to face the critical challenges of the twenty first century.

We shouldn't simply go back to Labour's 2006 spending priorities - their love affair with the casino capitalism of international finance and growth for its own sake helped bring us to this point. We should though build alliances across the trade union movement, political organisations and campaign groups to take this government head on.

I'll be marching on October 20th, I hope you'll join me.

Osborne’s failure on Green Economy and Jobs’

• Cash boost for big polluters shows Osborne ‘dangerously colour blind on the green economy’; Britain needs a Green New Deal
• Chancellor reveals plan to ‘rip up environmental and social protection laws’
• ‘Government failing to address UK’s biggest crisis: the jobs deficit’
• Ruling out Robin Hood Tax on financial sector is ‘huge mistake’

Chancellor George Osborne delivered his Autumn Statement today, setting out the Coalition Government’s strategy to deal with the UK’s stagnatingeconomy. The announcement coincides with a number of pessimistic predictions which set the British economy on course for a double dip recession next year

Responding to the Statement, Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion and leader of the Green party of England and Wales, said:

Today’s budget announcement exposes just how dangerously colour blind the Chancellor really is when it comes to the green economy and the low carbon industries which can help lift us out of recession.

And the fact that the Osborne is taking £250 million away from hard pressed families to fund a big cash boost for some of this country’s most polluting industries – whilst also rushing through major cuts to the flourishing solar industry – simply beggars belief.

Why agree on a much needed carbon tax to drag the UK’s energy intensive industries into the 21st century and pay for their contribution to the climate crisis, but then be scared into giving millions back because a few vested interests like Tata call your bluff?

This backwards and expensive merry-go-round shows that the Government is completely clueless on how to manage the low carbon revolution – and risks relegating the UK to the backseat when it comes to climate change and renewables.

Furthermore, the decision to scrap the 3p rise in fuel duty is scandalously short sighted and will set back our efforts to tackle transport emissions and air pollution. Instead, the Government should reverse the increase in VAT brought in at the beginning of the year – a better way of helping those finding it hardest to cope, as well as helping the economy to recover.”

‘Threat to our natural heritage’

Lucas continued:

What is also clear from today’s statement is that our valued countryside and environmental heritage is now seriously under threat from this Governmen’s bias towards big business. The Chancellor’s intention to scrap the so-called ‘red tape’ which protects the UK’s forests and fields from over-development, and reform the planning laws in favour of developers, is a call to arms for anyone who cares about conserving our natural heritage.

On inequality: ‘Nothing to see here’ 

This budget package – which looks suspiciously like a panicked Plan B rather than a Plan A Plus – does nothing to address the deepening inequality which is harming hard working people up and down the country.

Osborne refuses to address the vast gulf between the haves and the have-nots, and the persisting culture of entitlement in the financial sector that has allowed the earnings of top Barclays executives, for example, to increase by a stratospheric 4899.4% since 1980, whilst wages for the average worker have only seen a threefold increase.

The fact that the Government has confirmed it will not support a financial transactions tax such as the Robin Hood tax, or offer anything new to tackle tax avoidance and evasion, tells us all we need to know about the commitment to social justice amongst the Cabinet’s millionaire ministers.

And ripping up social protection laws is not the way to value our workforce and generate new jobs – indeed, industrial relations experts have shown that there is no ‘clear-cut link’ between employment protection and levels of unemployment.

On public infrastructure spending: ‘Missed opportunity to switch to green
quantitative easing’

Construction and road-building corporations are lobbying for more Government spending rather than austerity cuts – but the Chancellor lacks the courage or political vision to channel this billion pound spend into the job rich, green industries of the future.

If we invested heavily now in a major Green New Deal programme to create new state-owned renewable energy and an increase in energy efficiency measures to help bring down bills, we could create hundreds of thousands of jobs, as well as remain internationally competitive in the green technology race.

The jobs deficit

The Green MP concluded:

Ultimately, the constant downgrading of the UK’s growth forecasts is the clearest proof we need that the Coalition’s cuts plan is completely failing even on its own terms – with the Chancellor merely tinkering around the edges on our most urgent problem: the jobs deficit.

With unemployment at its highest rate since 1994, and more than one million 16-24 year olds out of work, the myth that the private sector would step in when the Government scaled back public spending to magic up jobs out of nowhere has been exposed as nonsense.

Green alternative to destruction of public services by Tories, Lib Dems and Labour

Caroline Lucas, Green MP and Green Party leader, had the following letter published in the Independent today.

“Deficit denier” is a very ugly term for those of us who have a positive and constructive viewpoint on managing the country’s financial and other problems.

We can make full acknowledgement of the deficit, and still identify different options for dealing with it. The response of ruthless cuts and austerity measures is an ideological choice made by the big three parties. For Labour and some Lib Dems to criticise the “pace and scale” of the cuts is still a pro-cuts, pro-austerity choice.

The Green Party, many unions and some economists have proposed an alternative choice. This would involve cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion, saving billions every year. It would involve the wealthiest people in society pay a fairer share. It would mean saving £100bn over thirty years by scrapping Trident and its proposed replacement. It would involve a windfall tax on bank profits as well as a heavy tax on bankers’ bonuses. It would mean reducing the deficit more slowly, and thus avoiding these savage cuts. It would mean smart switching of funds from high-carbon to carbon-reduction spending (for example away from motorway-building and into public transport), and other ways of generating funds such as a green investment bank. 

It would mean having enough cash to invest heavily in a Green New Deal – a major plan to kickstart the transformation to a post-carbon economy while creating a million new jobs and training places. And the new jobs would in turn bring in extra revenue to support public spending (whereas cuts will cost the country a million jobs).

Greens and many others who do not “deny the deficit” would prefer the government to make this ideological choice – based on fairness and sustainability – not the one based on destroying public services and punishing the poorest people in society.